Mon 25 Jul 2005
I just got finished reading this article entitled Linux and Audio Production: Simplicity Required. A couple of things caught my attention - it was about audio recording, a topic near and dear to my heart, and it stated “simplicity required”.
Now to all the tech heads who can’t see past their own wants and needs, to those who state we are targeting brain dead users by dumbing down the interface, I give you the typical user I personally try to target. Read the article.
Jono Bacon is a smart guy. He states:
The solution to the problem is integrating key, predictable components and making them work flawlessly. In all honestly, if I cannot download the software and make it work straight away without tinkering around with sound servers and such, it will not get a look in. Period. When you download and use Firefox it just works, when you use OpenOffice.org it just works, when you use The GIMP it just works - when you use Cubase it just works.
He just isn’t a guy who wants to tinker around with his computer. As a user he wants the computer to be a tool for recording and mixing music. This is important distinction as people who work on bringing these tools to the user often get lost in the fun of tinkering. It is one of the reason programmers shouldn’t be designers because they often get tied up in designing for the programmers needs or mindset and not the users.
Programmers should also give more respect to designers, usability experts and all around sensible thinkers who are for the most part one step removed from the down and dirty bits and bytes that programmers love to wallow in. This gives them a clearer view of the computing landscape to those who use computer for more than just a playground (believe me these users more than outnumber us).
Often designers feel they are being ignored simply because they are not on the front lines writing the code and in our community it is those who write the code who have the most say. When thinking about this it is good to remember that while the designers may be one step away from the code we as programmers are most likely miles away from the typical user.
“With great power comes great responsibility” (ok I know the quote is cheesy but it holds a kernel of truth). We as programmers must be willing to use our power to create not just for ourselves but for the wider audience. If Linux is to succeed on the desktop and grow in mindshare it is people like Jono who we need to be listening to. “Simplicity Required” states it all quite simply.
[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
July 25th, 2005 at 2:12 am
Your posting also holds a kernel of truth
OTOH what most OSS projects are missing is coding power and developers are struggling between new features and bugfixing.
Self declared usability experts and gui designer coming around is the last thing i need as long as i cannot even implement my own ideas because of lacking time.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:31 am
One of the problems with the sound systems at the moment is that there is very little good programmer documentation on making sound work under Linux. So each programmer goes off and does their own little thing, leading to a mismash of sound servers and buggy applications.
Speaking as someone who recently tried to make an audio application that “just works” was nearly impossible. I ended up spending my time working on getting the sound system I use working, because it was distracting me from the application I was trying to write.
July 25th, 2005 at 3:55 am
You are perpetuating the “programmers can’t be designers” myth. Bad interface design is not caused by programming knowledge, it’s caused by lack of interaction design / usability knowledge.
Have you used tools like Logic or Cubase? They are incredibly complex, more so than any OSS GUI tools i’ve seen. There is a reason for this of course. First, they are tools for professionals and as such they are optimized for productivity rather than learning curve (just like DTP programs, CAD programs and 3D modelling tools). Second, the underlying concepts can be quite complex but they need to be exposed in order for the user to get work done. It’s not bits and bytes, it’s channels, inserts, sends, returns and so on…
OSS audio tools are actually much simpler than their commercial counterparts. This is mostly due to lack of functionality more than anything else (this is the biggest problem with audio production on linux today, not usability).
Users make terrible interface designers. Just look at any “User Suggestion” forum for any commercial/OSS product (if they exist). Users are good at recognizing good designs, but not creating them.
If you want to see good usability in audio tools, have a look at Ableton Live (http://www.ableton.com). It is created by programmers who are also musicians. They also seem to have a clue about user interfaces, despite knowing how to write a C++ class.
I should write more about this, but i got to go know
July 25th, 2005 at 5:00 am
Rob: While I understand your point, what usability qualifications do you accept? Since “self-declared usability experts” don’t float your boat, should people have a BSc, perhaps? There is the thought that fixing the usability of the stuff that an application already does is more important than adding new features that people also don’t understand as well. I totally agree that most projects are short of people to fix code, though.
Perry: that’s interesting, the idea that we’re not in a “just works” state because the underlying infrastructure isn’t there yet. Hardware fixed this with HAL, but I’m not sure that what audio needs is Yet Another Framework
July 25th, 2005 at 5:31 am
Hooray! Someone gets it
I’m happy to tinker for hours, read volumes of documentation that may or may not have anything to do with my audio problem, compile kernels, alsa modules, pore over module lists to see which I need for my weird sound card, fight /dev and udev, work out how to save settings so they are the same between reboots,etc. etc. etc, just to get basic sound working.
Really. I am, and I do.
But.
Joe user will not do that. Joe Pro Audio User might, but he will hate it, and the Audio app will have to be 10 times better than what’s out there for the commercial OS’s for him to even bother trying.
Thanks.
July 25th, 2005 at 6:08 am
“when you use Cubase it just works.”
Ha! This is certainly *not* my experience, though I must admit this was 5 or so years ago. However when I bought a copy of Steinberg’s Halion String Edition last year I figured Steinberg must have got their house in order by now, but no; it barely worked. Figured my computer must be underpowered or something, sold it on Ebay. The guy who bought it couldn’t get it to work.
I wouldn’t *ever* use Cubase as an example of something that “just works”. Cakewalk Sonar on the other hand has been amazing, and it’s user interface is far far better too.
July 25th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Frderik,
Thanks for replying. Did you read the article? From Jono’s point of view functionality is not lacking, it is usability and I have to agree. I know bands who use Apple’s garage band for the first stage of production and then move on to more complex software. Complexity does not always have to mean bad UI and usability though.
Users do make horrible UI designers. That’s why we have designers. My point was that we must listen for our users needs - smart people who want to get work done. This is often done not directly but through usability labs and studies.
As for saying that programmers can never be designers I would never make that statement. What I said is they shouldn’t. As with the case of all blanket statements there are edge cases. However I do believe we need to put our faith in the OSS designers who are trained to think about this stuff more than programmers get to. Brian Clark and Seth Nickell are two who I highly respect and work with (and yes they both can program but wouldn’t call themselves programmers).
I was once in a jury pool for some case. The lawyer asked us if we heard medical testimony from a Doctor and a business man was brought in to refute the evidence who’s testimony would you give more weight to? The funny things is most people said the same weight should be applied to each. People wanted to seem fair and show no favoritism. The truth is, always defer to the expert. Yes he could be talking out of his ass no matter how many degrees the person has but more than likely he is going to have more knowledge of the subject than anyone else.
July 25th, 2005 at 8:32 am
rob,
Never listen to “self declared” people. We have plenty of experts who have credentials behind them.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:30 am
okay, I have no probs to confess that I’m no a usability expert. I’m s simple user and translator of some (~10 or more) Linux audio apps.
Do I have to immediately stop producing usability improvement suggestions and drawing dialogs just because i’m not an expert?
Do I have to leave developers alone with their ideas what is best for users and try to get used to their point of view or quit Linux audio?
July 25th, 2005 at 10:34 am
I have to agree with Frederik. Pro audio tools are not generally ‘easy to use’. They usually have wierd interfaces, often only just work, and for some reason the authors always have some aversion to using standard native widgets. To think anything else would be looking at windows/mac software with rose tinted glasses due to familiarity.
The only software which I would exclude from this is Garageband. (And between you and me, it’s not that good either. Apple seem to have this idea that giving everything odd icons makes software ‘usable’. Oh. clicking on this picture of an eye changes the view to a list of available loops. That makes sense. It took me about half an hour to even figure out it had an onscreen keyboard.) No free software from what I can see is trying to be Garageband. Maybe audacity to some extent. So I think complaining that free audio software doesn’t ‘just work’ isn’t valid.
Pro audio software generally does not ‘just work’. It is complex stuff whose user interface is tuned to people who use the software day in day out and need a fast workflow.
The way I see it, no platform can offer anything to compete with jack at the moment. Add to that the fact that there are LOTS of very good jack apps out there and you can do pretty much anything on linux. If someone wants to create a Garageband-alike ‘easy’ application for jack, that would be great.
Michael F: Wow. It was just a matter of launching jackd for me.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:38 am
2Robert:
No free software from what I can see is trying to be Garageband. Maybe audacity to some extent.
In what aspect do you want free software to behave like Garageband?
July 25th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
In what aspect do you want free software to behave like Garageband?
I personally don’t. I’m quite happy with pro software like ardour. But the author is saying that simple solutions that ‘just work’ are needed.
July 25th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Well, I asked about it, because people usually refer to either GarageBand or ACID Pro is to state-of-the-art multitrack recorders with intensive use of loops.
Which is exactly what opensource Gungirl Sequencer is, and which Ardour can be used as (it does have a looping brush).
July 25th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Alexandre,
About being a user and making UI suggestions - well it boils down to the question what makes somone an expert. Some go to school for it, other just take to it. This is the same with code. If your suggestions follow a pattern of quality remarks that do make the software more usable than you can count yourself as an expert of sorts. But there are too many people who don’t look at the bigger picture but still belive they know what a good interface is and all they do is complain on the lists. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all. Of course in line with my earlier statements if there is a person who is specially trained and looks at these issues objectively through studdies and scientific methods we should in most cases deffer to their judgement.
July 25th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Hi John. I’m a current LILUG-er. BTW, you rock!
Thanks for your time.
Jono mentioned this about a month ago on the LUGRadio forums.
See this lugradio forums thread “Moving to an Open Source editing program for LUGRadio”
http://forums.lugradio.org/viewtopic.php?t=1071
I ranted in that thread as “underscan”.
A snippet from my response:
“Please for the love of ease of use read this http://apreche.net/blog/2005/05/21#linuxsound , he is making his case for better Linux audio support for multichannel use, specifically games, but this is only 1 example of how ALSA works but is just not good enough. We can have the slickest GUI that puts ProTools & Cubase to shame. We can have virtual instruments & effects that users can edit & share because it is FOSS. We can have it all & it won’t matter until ALSA is cleaned up, streamlined & fixed. Today we have 2 channel (stero right & left) support in Linux that works OK. I won’t even suggest that it works fine or great since there are common HW audio chipsets that have problems with ALSA. The Linux user can not take advantage of current audio HW features because practically all of drivers for generic 5.1 channel audio chipsets/cards built on the motherboard that are shipped in today’s PC are nowhere near being feature complete or stable as compared to Windows drivers. Gstreamer, a real sweet project, will not fix this since GS sits above the HW and above the drivers. “
July 26th, 2005 at 1:53 am
This discussion really has very little to do with audio tools really. It’s a more general thing.
Most people suck at programming. Therefore, most usability experts will suck att programming. Most people suck att usability and interaction design. Therefore, most programmers will suck at it too. This is not surprising really.
What i meant to say with my post is that it’s not the programming skills that make programmers suck at usability. It’s the fact that they don’t know usability.
Maybe there is some truth to your statements when we’re talking about software using concepts that are very familiar to programmers but not other people. One example might be a GUI for hardware configuration or a package installer like synaptic.But the concepts in Pro Audio tools are actually more familiar to the average user of those programs than to the average programmer. Ask a programmer what soft-knee compression is and i doubt you’ll get an answer. Musicians are geeks too :).
But i have real trouble taking that article seriously when he is praising Cubase and then goes on to complain about usability. A lot of people using Pro Audio tools seem to swear by them and are so used to them that they don’t see their flaws.
And i can’t see how he missed the fact that OSS audio tools are _severely_ lacking in sound quality. To the point of beeing completely unusable even if you can stand the UI.
Finally, the best user interface is no user interface at all. To make things “Just Work” you don’t need usability people, you need a change in attitude among programmers. Of course for a lot of things there has to be a UI, and then the usability people are valuable. I think GNOME has been very successful in creating a culture of “usability matters”, and if you see the UI:s that GNOME programmers create and compare that to the average OSS UI five years ago the difference is huge.
You just need to keep on working on that, make sure that the usability people feel welcome and are taken seriously. But you also need to make programmers better at usability, because frankly there wont be enough usability experts around.